4 ms·

This is a case of one group of self-absorbed people intersecting with another group of self-absorbed people. As the article points out, the ragers make up thei

by Xurinos 16y ago

This is a case of one group of self-absorbed people intersecting with another group of self-absorbed people. As the article points out, the ragers make up their own perceived rules, and so do the slow people. "I have the right to be here..." "People should be courteous, as I define it..." There is plenty of narcissism to go around with this kind of thing.

burgerbrain 16y ago
If everyone were perfectly courteous, everyone would be standing perfectly still so as to not accidentally infringe on someone else's perceived personal space. In the real world, there really are people who block traffic in entirely unreasonable ways that effect large numbers of other people. Really the only way to properly handle that situation is to shove past, so that you don't add to the situation. There is no neutral position, you can only hope to be less rude.
- Xurinos 16y ago
  "If everyone were perfectly courteous" = "If everyone lived by the same rules I live by" = "If everyone had the same notion of respect as I" It is difficult for people to agree, not only across cultures but within the same culture, with what is considered socially correct. Don't get me wrong: I am a large believer in courtesy. I share your vision that there is a lack of efficiency, that a few people can affect a large number of people. I see it all the time in traffic jams. On the sidewalk, I try to let people pass; I feel it is not only nice but also more efficient. However, getting angry over someone else not doing the same as I would do... That is just ego speaking. My way is not the only way or necessarily truly the best way, whatever my rationalization to suit my sense of self-righteousness.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    Getting angry is just an emotion, so long as you handle yourself properly it doesn't really matter at all what you feel. The point I and others are trying to get across here is that the author of the story is voicing an unrealistic expectation; one that involved everyone playing by the same rules. My point is that outward 'aggression' is a normal part of dealing with a crowd, you can't villain-ize it without villain-izing the behaviour that makes it necessary. "If everyone were perfectly courteous, everyone would be standing perfectly still so as to not accidentally infringe on someone else's perceived personal space." By this I mean a world where everybody acts to minimize discomfort of others on the streets is a fantasy.
  - sophacles 16y ago
    It seems like you are just trying to set up a situation where you can do what you want, and any effect it has on others is their fault for being self absorbed. Have you considered that the anger is not "they do it different" but "their actions are causing measurable negative consequence to me"? If the inefficiency caused by a door stopper causes me to miss a train connection, is it really all about my ego, or is it about that person screwing up my entire travel?
    - Xurinos 16y ago
      Have you considered that the anger is not "their actions are causing measurable negative consequence to me" but "their actions are outside my control"? They did something that was not a part of our perfect little plan, and it simply irks us. We are so wrapped up in our own vision of how the world is, how the world will be for us, that we get angry when something happens counter to our vision. Yes, it is narcissism. And that is okay. It is okay to recognize a problem and adapt to it or to regain control. When it is not okay is when our angry reaction is also negative. To take your hypothetical situation: "If the inefficiency caused by a door stopper causes me to miss a train connection, is it really all about my ego, or is it about that person screwing up my entire travel?" I am sure all of us know somebody who is habitually late, and they have all kinds of excuses for it. So do people who are only sometimes late. This is just bad time management. The expectation that the world should operate perfectly in accordance with your plan is where I can claim it is about your ego. You are going to blame that one person for screwing up your travel? I like the pseudointellectual rationalization here, the excuse that it was the "inefficiency" of that other person that caused your problem. Maybe you should have gotten out of bed earlier. Maybe your affairs should have been in order before Go time. We like to place the blame on others rather than accept personal responsibility. That is just how important and infallible we are. Narcissism. Granted, that person's stopping behavior did have an impact, as did the speed of your walking, the amount of luggage you were carrying vs how much you worked out weeks before in order to more easily carry it, the stop lights on the way to the station, the time it took to get your ticket checked, and the line of other people boarding. Again, please do not feel insulted if you fall in the narcissism category; we all do to varying degrees. Very common. My intent was to point it out as a huge contributing factor in order to balance things out a bit. The OP was trying to put the "ragers" in the clear, but as the saying goes, "It takes two to start a fight."
alexqgb 16y ago
So, um, those signs on the freeway saying "slower traffic keep right"... those are the products of self-absorbed narcissists who have done what? Infiltrated the Department of Transportation?
- Xurinos 16y ago
  I will be using "you" to mean people that rage in general, not specifically you because I do not know how you react. :) First, you bring up a different subject: Are we talking about freeway signs or sidewalks? I was going with the sidewalk examples. Why should the same rules apply? Why would you be angry if a walker on a sidewalk was not following the same rules as a car driver on a freeway? It is insensible anyway: humans are not equipped with turn signals, although sometimes I wish they were. ;) Let's talk about road rage now. In the presence of signs that clearly state "slower traffic keep right", why would you be angry if someone drives slower on the left? Sure, they are disobeying traffic signs, breaking the law, etc, but why is that your concern? What gives you the authority to "punish" (honking horns, riding a lawbreaker's tail, giving the finger on your way by, swerving angrily around to indicate your opinion, etc)? No, the signs are not products of self-absorbed narcissists, not for these situations; those individuals may very well fit that profile in spite of the signs, but we do not have direct evidence of that in any scenario described so far. The anger reaction from the perceived slight in these circumstances is. Ironically, when we talk about narcissism, we probably need to self-analyze, too. All of us have a certain amount of it, or we would not be gracing the rest of the Internet public with the bounties of our posts, believing that people might actually care about our opinions. :)
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    "Let's talk about road rage now. In the presence of signs that clearly state "slower traffic keep right", why would you be angry if someone drives slower on the left? Sure, they are disobeying traffic signs, breaking the law, etc, but why is that your concern? What gives you the authority to "punish" (honking horns, riding a lawbreaker's tail, giving the finger on your way by, swerving angrily around to indicate your opinion, etc)?" Are you joking? If somebody is driving slowly in the left lane, they are creating an unsafe traffic condition. It isn't wrong simply because there are signs saying not to do it, it's wrong specifically because it negatively effects other drivers on the road. Furthermore, honking your horn is not "punishment", it's a form of communication.
gaius 16y ago
their own perceived rules, and so do the slow people My perceived rule is that no two bodies can occupy the same space at the same time. Perhaps you've heard of it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

by Xurinos 16y ago

burgerbrain 16y ago

If everyone were perfectly courteous, everyone would be standing perfectly still so as to not accidentally infringe on someone else's perceived personal space. In the real world, there really are people who block traffic in entirely unreasonable ways that effect large numbers of other people. Really the only way to properly handle that situation is to shove past, so that you don't add to the situation. There is no neutral position, you can only hope to be less rude.

Xurinos 16y ago
"If everyone were perfectly courteous" = "If everyone lived by the same rules I live by" = "If everyone had the same notion of respect as I" It is difficult for people to agree, not only across cultures but within the same culture, with what is considered socially correct. Don't get me wrong: I am a large believer in courtesy. I share your vision that there is a lack of efficiency, that a few people can affect a large number of people. I see it all the time in traffic jams. On the sidewalk, I try to let people pass; I feel it is not only nice but also more efficient. However, getting angry over someone else not doing the same as I would do... That is just ego speaking. My way is not the only way or necessarily truly the best way, whatever my rationalization to suit my sense of self-righteousness.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  Getting angry is just an emotion, so long as you handle yourself properly it doesn't really matter at all what you feel. The point I and others are trying to get across here is that the author of the story is voicing an unrealistic expectation; one that involved everyone playing by the same rules. My point is that outward 'aggression' is a normal part of dealing with a crowd, you can't villain-ize it without villain-izing the behaviour that makes it necessary. "If everyone were perfectly courteous, everyone would be standing perfectly still so as to not accidentally infringe on someone else's perceived personal space." By this I mean a world where everybody acts to minimize discomfort of others on the streets is a fantasy.
- sophacles 16y ago
  It seems like you are just trying to set up a situation where you can do what you want, and any effect it has on others is their fault for being self absorbed. Have you considered that the anger is not "they do it different" but "their actions are causing measurable negative consequence to me"? If the inefficiency caused by a door stopper causes me to miss a train connection, is it really all about my ego, or is it about that person screwing up my entire travel?
  - Xurinos 16y ago
    Have you considered that the anger is not "their actions are causing measurable negative consequence to me" but "their actions are outside my control"? They did something that was not a part of our perfect little plan, and it simply irks us. We are so wrapped up in our own vision of how the world is, how the world will be for us, that we get angry when something happens counter to our vision. Yes, it is narcissism. And that is okay. It is okay to recognize a problem and adapt to it or to regain control. When it is not okay is when our angry reaction is also negative. To take your hypothetical situation: "If the inefficiency caused by a door stopper causes me to miss a train connection, is it really all about my ego, or is it about that person screwing up my entire travel?" I am sure all of us know somebody who is habitually late, and they have all kinds of excuses for it. So do people who are only sometimes late. This is just bad time management. The expectation that the world should operate perfectly in accordance with your plan is where I can claim it is about your ego. You are going to blame that one person for screwing up your travel? I like the pseudointellectual rationalization here, the excuse that it was the "inefficiency" of that other person that caused your problem. Maybe you should have gotten out of bed earlier. Maybe your affairs should have been in order before Go time. We like to place the blame on others rather than accept personal responsibility. That is just how important and infallible we are. Narcissism. Granted, that person's stopping behavior did have an impact, as did the speed of your walking, the amount of luggage you were carrying vs how much you worked out weeks before in order to more easily carry it, the stop lights on the way to the station, the time it took to get your ticket checked, and the line of other people boarding. Again, please do not feel insulted if you fall in the narcissism category; we all do to varying degrees. Very common. My intent was to point it out as a huge contributing factor in order to balance things out a bit. The OP was trying to put the "ragers" in the clear, but as the saying goes, "It takes two to start a fight."

alexqgb 16y ago

So, um, those signs on the freeway saying "slower traffic keep right"... those are the products of self-absorbed narcissists who have done what? Infiltrated the Department of Transportation?

Xurinos 16y ago
I will be using "you" to mean people that rage in general, not specifically you because I do not know how you react. :) First, you bring up a different subject: Are we talking about freeway signs or sidewalks? I was going with the sidewalk examples. Why should the same rules apply? Why would you be angry if a walker on a sidewalk was not following the same rules as a car driver on a freeway? It is insensible anyway: humans are not equipped with turn signals, although sometimes I wish they were. ;) Let's talk about road rage now. In the presence of signs that clearly state "slower traffic keep right", why would you be angry if someone drives slower on the left? Sure, they are disobeying traffic signs, breaking the law, etc, but why is that your concern? What gives you the authority to "punish" (honking horns, riding a lawbreaker's tail, giving the finger on your way by, swerving angrily around to indicate your opinion, etc)? No, the signs are not products of self-absorbed narcissists, not for these situations; those individuals may very well fit that profile in spite of the signs, but we do not have direct evidence of that in any scenario described so far. The anger reaction from the perceived slight in these circumstances is. Ironically, when we talk about narcissism, we probably need to self-analyze, too. All of us have a certain amount of it, or we would not be gracing the rest of the Internet public with the bounties of our posts, believing that people might actually care about our opinions. :)
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  "Let's talk about road rage now. In the presence of signs that clearly state "slower traffic keep right", why would you be angry if someone drives slower on the left? Sure, they are disobeying traffic signs, breaking the law, etc, but why is that your concern? What gives you the authority to "punish" (honking horns, riding a lawbreaker's tail, giving the finger on your way by, swerving angrily around to indicate your opinion, etc)?" Are you joking? If somebody is driving slowly in the left lane, they are creating an unsafe traffic condition. It isn't wrong simply because there are signs saying not to do it, it's wrong specifically because it negatively effects other drivers on the road. Furthermore, honking your horn is not "punishment", it's a form of communication.

gaius 16y ago

their own perceived rules, and so do the slow people My perceived rule is that no two bodies can occupy the same space at the same time. Perhaps you've heard of it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle